11
   

Sen. Graham Hints Constitution Outdated

 
 
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 03:55 pm
Here's what the Chi. Tribune says about the Fascist opinions of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Chicago Tribune wrote:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., proposes that if and when Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev is captured, he be held as an "enemy combatant" so he can be interrogated without the constitutional protections afforded to criminal suspects.

He's talking about an American citizen who would be arrested on American soil, not a Taliban fighter seized on a battlefield in Afghanistan. But Graham thinks our normal laws should be waived. Why? Because we might get some useful information that way.

But if getting useful information is the paramount consideration, why respect the Bill of Rights at all? Requiring police to get search warrants lets some criminals go free. Assuring defendants legal counsel prevents confessions.


More at link.

Opinions?

 
mysteryman
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 04:00 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
The govt is already using a "special law" that says they dont have to read him his rights because of an "imminent threat", whatever that means.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 04:43 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

The govt is already using a "special law" that says they dont have to read him his rights because of an "imminent threat", whatever that means.


Yeah, that's a real clever end-run around 5th and 6th Amendment protections, isn't it? What it seems to boil down to is that if you want to railroad someone, all you need to do is label him/her a "terrorist" because he/she is an "imminent threat." After a while somebody who didn't pay a parking ticket gets hauled in by the local police chief who hates that person's guts on the pretext that this person is a "known terrorist." Far fetched? Not the way the current crop of neocons is thinking, it'snot.
Below viewing threshold (view)
JTT
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 04:59 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
How do you square this pretense with your "**** fair"?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 05:18 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I'm very unhappy about this attempt to avoid mirandizing Tsarnaev, for many reasons, but particularly re the face and hand of justice.
I'm (or I should say we are) not alone - the Massachusetts Public Defender is worried about this as well.

More at this link -
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580591/public-defenders-will-represent-boston-bomb-suspect/
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 05:33 pm
He is an American citizen with all the rights of one. If they take away his rights than they can do the same to you and me or anyone. I consider both men animals if they did what the government claims. But untill they prove it he is innocent. Its tough enough to get a fair trial when one has to fight the government money with no funds.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 05:47 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

He is an American citizen with all the rights of one. If they take away his rights than they can do the same to you and me or anyone. I consider both men animals if they did what the government claims. But untill they prove it he is innocent. Its tough enough to get a fair trial when one has to fight the government money with no funds.


I agree absolutely, Rabel. American citizens are supposed to have certain "inalienable rights" under the US Constitution. The abrogation of one such right for one American citizen threatens all the other rights of all of us. A person who is accused of one heinous crime does not thereby lose the protection against government capriciousness that the Constitution guarantees.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 05:48 pm
I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but in this case I agree with them 100%

http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-statement-miranda-rights-boston-bombings-suspect
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 06:27 pm
@mysteryman,
If they did indeed try to question him. Some articles say he was uncounscious when he was arrested. Wait for the facts.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 07:08 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
I consider both men animals if they did what the government claims.



What do you think, in an academic sense, is the difference between the Tsarnaev brothers and the men, and possibly, women, who fly the US drones?

According to Sen Graham these drone fliers have killed some 4700 people.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 07:18 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
I am not a big fan of the ACLU,


Of course you aren't, MM. You don't have what's necessary upstairs to sort thru the propaganda. When the constitution was being set up, those guys thought they had died and gone to heaven. Imagine their delight at being given the keys to the vault and the only guards put in place were you sheep.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  3  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 11:17 am
I find it interesting that the guy who shot up the sikh temple wasn't branded a terrorist. The term seems to be bandied about when it's convenient.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 06:35 pm
@Ceili,
Its the American way. After all they werent christian.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 06:41 pm
@RABEL222,
I don't remark on every horribleness I read. It's a false presumption that I won't care.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 06:53 pm
I agree that every citizen should have equal protection under the law.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 07:29 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

I find it interesting that the guy who shot up the sikh temple wasn't branded a terrorist. The term seems to be bandied about when it's convenient.


That's the problem -- the way they're using the word now, you're a terrorist if the powers that be say you're a terrorist. You're cool if they like you. And if you're deemed a terrorist, your rights have suddenly been forfeited.
JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 07:38 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
That's the problem -- the way they're using the word now, you're a terrorist if the powers that be say you're a terrorist. You're cool if they like you.


"the powers that be". Who might they be, Merry?

Quote:
And if you're deemed a terrorist, your rights have suddenly been forfeited.


All of a sudden you've got a bee up your ass about "rights". What made you find 'god' in such an all fired up hurry?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2013 07:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
How come no one wants to answer this question?

What do you think, in an academic sense, is the difference between the Tsarnaev brothers and the men, and possibly, women, who fly the US drones?

According to Sen Graham these drone fliers have killed some 4700 people. Do you think it even remotely possible that a fifth, a tenth of the 4700 were "terrorists"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sen. Graham Hints Constitution Outdated
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 09:49:31